Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />\1 <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />This data was used to develop floodplain limilS established by FEMA. Currently, FEMA has <br />completed the preliminary revised floodplain delineations. The maximum lOO-year flood level <br />is estimated to be at elevation 4816.9 USGS (104.5 relative). The channel bed is at elevation <br />4804.9 (92.5 relative), which makes a depth of 12 feet. <br /> <br />The capacity of the existing structure was determined so that proposed improvements would <br />either match or exceed the operation of the existing structure. The existing structures capacity <br />with all of the gates fully opened was detennined to be approximately 3,170 cfs. This is <br />based on the maximum elevation that can be achieved before the right bank is overtopped at <br />elevation 99.5. At the point of overtopping, the right (west) floodplain begins to carry a <br />considerable amount of flow. Based on the Corp of Engineers hydrology infonnation, the <br />existing structure cannot pass the 10-year stonn in the channel. At the 100-year level, the <br />entire structure would be overtopped by approximately 3.5 feet. The gated structure has <br />experienced considerable operational problems during high flows from debris accumulation, <br />which amplifies the structural stability problems. <br /> <br />A.8. STRUCTURE PLANS <br /> <br />1. Alternatives. Several alternatives were initially reviewed and discussed for the rehabilita- <br />tion of the diversion structure. After eliIninating some of the initial alternatives and <br />combining others, three fmal alternatives were:: chosen for further review. The details of the <br />three alternatives pursued in this study are described below and are shown on Figure V-2. <br /> <br />Alternative No. 1. The minimum cost alternative considered in this study was to patch the <br />existing structure and fix the gates as needed to make them more convenient to operate. This <br />alternative would not significantly increase the structure's overall stability but would slow the <br />deterioration of the structure and increase the expected life span of the structure. Greater ease <br />in operating the gates may reduce the likelihood of problems during a flood and may save the <br />structure in a marginal condition. <br /> <br />Repair of the structure would include the following items: <br /> <br />1. Place a new concrete slab over the entire base slab. This would repair and <br />replace the portions of the base slab that are eroded, broken, and spalled and <br />would be designed to fix the pie::r to base slab joint. <br /> <br />2. Grout the voids beneath the base slab where the underseepage has eroded <br />material from the foundation. <br /> <br />3. Patch the piers as needed to reduce further freeze-thaw deterioration. <br /> <br />4. Place a new concrete apron downstream of the structure and energy dissipation <br />blocks. <br /> <br />PAGE 10 . CJaprr:rV <br />